In re Savanna C.

This is
a termination of parental rights case involving the parental
rights of the father, Jason C. ("Father"), to his
minor child, Savanna C. ("the Child"), who was two
years of age at the time of trial. The Child was born in 2014
to Father and Katie N. ("Mother"). On November 10,
2014, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court ("juvenile
court") granted temporary legal custody of the Child to
the maternal grandmother, Kathryn N. ("Maternal
Grandmother"). The maternal grandfather, Tommy N.
("Maternal Grandfather"), was later added as a
joint petitioner. The juvenile court adjudicated the Child
dependent and neglected on August 20, 2015, and ordered that
the Child remain in the custody of the Maternal Grandmother
and Maternal Grandfather (collectively, "Maternal
Grandparents"). On September 21, 2015, Maternal
Grandparents filed a petition to terminate Father's
parental rights to the Child in the Hamilton County Circuit
Court ("trial court"). Following a bench trial, the
trial court terminated Father's parental rights to the
Child upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that
Father had abandoned the Child by willfully failing to visit
during the four months preceding the filing of the
termination petition. The court also found clear and
convincing evidence that termination of Father's parental
rights was in the best interest of the Child. Father has
appealed.[1] Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Upon
petition filed by Maternal Grandmother, the juvenile court,
in an order entered November 10, 2014, removed the Child from
the custody of her parents due to the parents' lack of
stable housing and drug addiction, placing temporary custody
of the Child with Maternal Grandmother. Maternal Grandfather
was not included in the initial custody order, but the
juvenile court later added him as a joint petitioner. During
a hearing in December 2014, Father submitted to a drug screen
administered by the juvenile court and tested positive for
oxycodone. Father reported having a prescription for the
medication at that time.

Following
removal of the Child from the parents' custody, Father
filed a petition for custody in the juvenile court in March
2015, alleging that Mother had an extensive history of drug
abuse and was not fit to care for the Child. Father also
alleged that Maternal Grandparents had allowed Mother more
visits per week than ordered by the juvenile court and had
cancelled Father's visits abruptly. Father subsequently
withdrew his custody petition, explaining during trial that
he had filed the petition when he and Mother "had a
break" in their relationship for approximately a week.
Father later submitted to a hair follicle drug screen on or
about April 10, 2015, with the results indicating that he
tested positive for methamphetamine.

During
the pendency of the juvenile case, as the juvenile court
record reflects, Father was arrested for public intoxication
in March 2015 and for "Driving Under the Influence of an
Intoxicant" on May 16, 2015. Following the adjudicatory
hearing on July 16, 2015, the juvenile court found by clear
and convincing evidence that the Child was dependent and
neglected as to Father and Mother due to the parents'
lack of stability and progress. The court ordered that
custody of the Child remain with Maternal Grandparents.

On
September 21, 2015, Maternal Grandparents filed a petition in
the trial court, seeking to terminate the parents'
parental rights and adopt the Child. In their petition,
Maternal Grandparents alleged as statutory grounds that the
parents had abandoned the Child by failing to visit and
support her in the four months preceding the petition's
filing and that the conditions leading to the removal of the
Child from the parents' home persisted. Maternal
Grandparents also alleged that termination of the
parents' parental rights was in the best interest of the
Child. The trial court conducted a bench trial on April 6,
2016.

During
trial, Maternal Grandmother testified at the time she
obtained emergency custody of the Child on November 10, 2014,
the parents had left the Child with the paternal grandmother
("Paternal Grandmother") and Father's sister,
and the Child had missed her nine-month medical check-up.
Maternal Grandmother reported that the Child had contracted
two ear infections requiring antibiotics within a span of a
few weeks. According to Maternal Grandmother, the parents
were not present when she picked up the Child from Paternal
Grandmother's home. Maternal Grandmother obtained
emergency custody from the juvenile court on the day she
picked up the Child.

The
juvenile court ordered supervised visits for the parents in
early December, which were scheduled to occur twice per week.
According to Maternal Grandmother, she allowed the parents to
have regular visits prior to that court order. The visits
between the parents and the Child took place at public places
rather than Maternal Grandparents' home because, as
Maternal Grandmother related, Father entered their home while
Maternal Grandparents were away and stole blank checks, which
he attempted to use. Subsequently, Maternal Grandparents did
not allow Father in their home.

Concerning
visitation, Maternal Grandmother kept a chart of the visits
that occurred from November 2014 to April 2015. Maternal
Grandmother's chart, introduced as a trial exhibit,
reflects that there were thirteen visits offered to Father in
November and December 2014. Of those thirteen visits, Father
failed to appear for six and was late to five others.
Maternal Grandmother's chart also reflects that
twenty-five visits were offered to Father from January to
April 2015. Of those twenty-five visits, Father failed to
appear for nine and was late to thirteen others. According to
Maternal Grandmother, when Father was late, he was
approximately fifteen to thirty minutes late if not later.
Maternal Grandmother reported that each visit lasted from one
and one-half hours to two hours.

Although
Maternal Grandparents were initially responsible for
supervising the visits, in April 2015, the trial court
ordered that all supervised visits between the parents and
the Child would occur at Path Finders, a private agency
providing supervision for visits. This change was by reason
of tension between the parents and Maternal Grandparents.
Maternal Grandmother reported that the parents' visits
were moved to Path Finders because Father was harassing
Maternal Grandparents. According to Maternal Grandmother, the
parents were more concerned with the relationship between
Mother and Father than the welfare of the Child. Maternal
Grandmother explained that once the visits were changed to
Path Finders, Father did not visit the Child again until
January 2016.

On one
occasion, Mother contacted Maternal Grandmother in the summer
of 2015, requesting contact information for Path Finders so
that the parents could schedule a visit. It is undisputed
that Maternal Grandmother provided Mother with the requested
information. However, the visit never took place. Maternal
Grandmother indicated that she did not assist the parents
with the $45 visitation fee because she believed it to be the
parents' responsibility. According to Maternal
Grandmother, she and Maternal

Grandfather
had paid for the Child's birth expenses and had offered
to pay for Mother's individual counseling or
rehabilitation. Maternal Grandmother testified that the
parents had agreed to pay $101 a month toward the birth
expenses but never paid anything.

Concerning
financial support, Maternal Grandmother further testified
that the parents never offered to provide any money to
Grandparents for the Child's care, although the parents
did provide gifts, including toys, a book, clothes, and
marking pens. Maternal Grandmother explained that she had
never rejected any gifts that the parents gave her for the
Child. When asked why Maternal Grandparents filed the
petition in this matter, Maternal Grandmother responded:

Because [the parents] showed no interest in [the Child].
There were no visits. There was no contact from April till
September. There was not one e-mail. There was not one text.
There was not one phone call to ask about how is [the Child]
doing. They know nothing about any medical. They never ask
about doctor visits. They know nothing about their daughter.
And we want to provide her with the same stable home where
she has structure, that she was loved, and that she
doesn't have to worry where is she going to live this
time.

With
reference to the Child's current home environment,
Maternal Grandmother testified that she loved the Child and
believed that she and her husband could provide an
appropriate home for the Child. Maternal Grandmother reported
that the Child was thriving in their home. Maternal
Grandfather added that he also loved the Child and wished to
adopt her.

During
the course of trial, Maternal Grandparents presented evidence
of Father's prior criminal conduct. Mirza Muretcehajic, a
law enforcement officer, testified that he responded to a
call at the parents' home on March 4, 2015, at which time
Mother was "not in the right state of mind." Father
informed Officer Muretcehajic that they were former users of
methamphetamine and that Mother had locked herself in the
bathroom. Officer Muretcehajic testified that Mother
"wasn't making much sense" but that she had
reported to him that she had not slept for three days and was
not feeling well. According to Officer Muretcehajic, he
observed drug paraphernalia in the bedroom of the home,
including a pipe and residue. He did not remember observing a
child in the home.

Officer Jeff Buckner with the Chattanooga Police Department
testified regarding Father's arrest on May 16, 2015.
Officer Buckner reported that police officers initially
responded to the scene following reports that an individual
was unresponsive at a gas station. According to Officer
Buckner, Mother was responsive upon his arrival to the scene.
Observing that Father appeared to be under the influence at
the time, Officer Buckner conducted a field sobriety test.
Officer Buckner arrested Father for driving under the
influence, violation of implied consent, and possession of a
drug for resale. Mother was also arrested for public
intoxication.

Father
testified that he was subsequently arrested for public
intoxication on March 26, 2016. Father, however, denied being
intoxicated at the time of the March 2016 arrest. Father
claimed that he had driven back to Tennessee from Atlanta and
had pulled his vehicle over at a Dollar General store
"to take a nap." Father otherwise exercised his
Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, declining to answer
further questions about the incident.

Father
also testified regarding his residential circumstances,
stating that from November 2014 to January 2015, the parents
lived with Paternal Grandmother. In January 2015, the parents
moved to a home with friends and entered into a
month-to-month lease, paying $350 per month in rent. They
resided there until August 2015, after which they lived in
their van for approximately two or three weeks. In September
2015, the parents returned to Paternal Grandmother's
house. According to Father, the parents paid $400-450 a month
for rent, food, and utilities while sleeping on the living
room couch in Paternal Grandmother's home. Father
testified that he and Mother had relocated to a new townhouse
three days prior to trial. According to Father, he and Mother
currently resided in a townhouse with his niece, sleeping in
the living area. Father explained that he and Mother were not
parties to the townhouse lease.

With
reference to his work history, Father testified that he was
currently unemployed. According to Father, he possessed
qualifications in the fields of information system security,
web design, and network engineering, with experience
specifically in "network operation control, Cisco
routing, server configuration, different things of that
nature." Regarding his previous employment, Father
testified that he had been employed by the Go2IT Group as an
IBM consultant from April to August 2015. He indicated that
although he was earning $17 or $18 per hour while working
approximately eight or nine hours a day for three or four
days per week, he would have periods of two or three weeks
with no work during this time. Father testified that he was
able to pay the parents' rent out of one paycheck from
Go2IT. Father further stated that he was employed by Staffing
Solutions, working at Amazon, from November 2, 2015, until
January 3, 2016, earning $12 per hour. He left his employment
at Amazon due to an injury but had been released to return to
work. Subsequently, Father had been employed by Blue
Marketing, assisting with web design, until February 27 or
28, 2016.

Father
explained that he did not visit the Child between April 10,
2015, and late December 2015 due to the $45 visitation fee at
Path Finders. Although Father claimed he visited with the
Child in December 2015, he admitted that he had no proof that
he had visited the Child between April 10, 2015, and January
2016. According to Father, he did not visit because he and
Mother were "unemployed off and on" and trying to
"get settled in a place and get on [their] feet."
Father began visiting the Child in January 2016 and visited
at least five times between January and February 2016.
However, he did not begin visiting the Child immediately upon
receiving income from Amazon because he was "catching up
on bills, " including paying some credit card bills,
student loans payments, and money owed to immediate family
members.

Father
related that he possessed prescriptions for Adderall and
Xanax for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
("ADHD") and generalized anxiety. According to
Father, he spends $47 to $56 per month on those
prescriptions. Father explained that he was unable to
function normally or hold a job without the medication.
Father also testified that he had previously taken pain
medication for his back condition when he could afford it but
that he was not currently under the care of a physician for
pain management. Father maintained that he had completed a
drug assessment and mental health assessment but had not
completed drug treatment because he was waiting on the
results of the drug assessment. Father did not present copies
of the assessments to the trial court.

Acknowledging
that he had been ordered by the court to pay $328 per month
in child support, Father admitted that he had not paid any
support for the Child. Father insisted that he had offered
the Maternal Grandparents financial support for care of the
Child but that they had refused the money. Father related
that although he and Mother attended a concert in October
2015, he did not pay for the tickets because they were
provided to him as a birthday present.

It is
undisputed that Mother and Father remained in a relationship
at the time of trial. Mother reported that she and Father had
moved out of Paternal Grandmother's home three days prior
to the termination trial. Mother confirmed that the
parents' names did not appear on the lease for their new
residence. According to Mother, the parents planned to reside
with Father's niece for six to eight weeks until they
acquired their own apartment. Concerning drug use, Mother
reported that she had smoked marijuana with Father previously
but denied that they would "shoot up together."

According
to Mother, she had secured two jobs three weeks prior to
trial. Mother admitted that there was no reason she could not
have worked before except that she had a "very bad
addiction." Mother also testified that she was
previously employed through a staffing agency from November
2015 through February 2016. Despite the parents' reported
attempt to locate the phone number for Path Finders after
receiving Mother's first paycheck from the staffing
agency, she later e-mailed Maternal Grandmother, who provided
her with contact information for Path Finders. According to
Mother, the parents' attempts to schedule a visit
continued, but scheduling was delayed for weeks because of
the holidays.

Following
trial, the court took the matter under advisement. On April
29, 2016, the trial court entered its Memorandum and Order,
dismissing Maternal Grandparents' termination petition
upon finding that Maternal Grandparents had not proven a
ground for termination of parental rights by clear and
convincing evidence. Maternal Grandparents filed a motion to
alter or amend the trial court's judgment, requesting
that the trial court reconsider its dismissal of the
termination petition.

Following
a hearing, the trial court issued a Memorandum and Order on
July 8, 2016, granting Maternal Grandparents' motion to
alter or amend upon acknowledging that the court
"incorrectly rel[ied] upon evidence . . . subsequent to
the four month period to justify the conclusion that [Mother
and Father] made attempts to see their daughter and had not,
therefore, abandoned their daughter." The trial court
recognized that the January and February 2016 visits were
outside of the relevant four-month time period. Ultimately,
the trial court found clear and convincing evidence to
support the ground of abandonment for willful failure to
visit as to Father and Mother.[2] The trial court also determined
by clear and convincing evidence that termination of
Father's and Mother's parental rights was in the best
interest of the Child.[3]

Following
the termination of his parental rights, Father timely
appealed. On November 2, 2016, Mother requested that this
Court "dismiss her appeal and remove her from the case
as an appellant." This Court entered an ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.